Squire wrote:The policies of both major parties have been inhuman, criminal, and have damaged Australia's reputation.

Kidnapping people on the high seas and detaining them in third countries is a crime.

So, if 200,000 people arrived on boats to Australia shores, your policy would be to let all of them in, no questions asked?

Problem is.....that takes us to the very pointy end of the dilemma. No, I would not like to see 200,000 moving to Aus in leaky boats, but I have no say in that. As far as I am concerned, our Navy has been acting as pirates on the High Seas, intercepting vessels who have a right of passage, like we claim to have through the South China Sea. If said vessels get to Aus waters, and the occupants claim asylum, our obligations under that UN Convention kick in.

There is no solution, other than....remove the reason these people are leaving Home.

Squire wrote:The policies of both major parties have been inhuman, criminal, and have damaged Australia's reputation.

Kidnapping people on the high seas and detaining them in third countries is a crime.

So, if 200,000 people arrived on boats to Australia shores, your policy would be to let all of them in, no questions asked?

Problem is.....that takes us to the very pointy end of the dilemma. No, I would not like to see 200,000 moving to Aus in leaky boats, but I have no say in that. As far as I am concerned, our Navy has been acting as pirates on the High Seas, intercepting vessels who have a right of passage, like we claim to have through the South China Sea. If said vessels get to Aus waters, and the occupants claim asylum, our obligations under that UN Convention kick in.

There is no solution, other than....remove the reason these people are leaving Home.

There is no solution, other than....remove the reason these people are leaving Home.

Yes. There is. Humane, facilitated refugee camps in regional locations which are sponsored by the world's wealthier nations. We cut people smugglers off at the root by providing safe transport for these people ourselves.

All off-shore detainees to be flown to Australia immediately and reunited with their families.

Yes. There is. Humane, facilitated refugee camps in regional locations which are sponsored by the world's wealthier nations.

What is a facilitated refugee camp? Which Nations are going to chip in to house people seeking refuge in Australia? None that I can think off.

One with all provisions to house people in dignity and safety and with resources available to them to seek settlement somewhere safe.

And it's a global problem, Aussie. One that requires a global solution. The problem is, too many people like you let them get away with not returning a little of what they have plundered. How you can support the idea of it being too hard over it being unacceptable is precisely the mechanism they use to get away with it.

I've not seen one word of condemnation from most of you over the outrageous human rights violations we are currently committing on Nauru or Manus. When confronted with the fact a 14 year old girl's latest suicide attempt was to douse herself in petrol, and was only given the required treatment under threat of court action, you all respond with "You want to let them all in?"''

I don't think like that. And it will be through people who don't think like that that solutions will become possible. We have the means ... many times over.

We cut people smugglers off at the root by providing safe transport for these people ourselves.

With no limit? The economic cost alone would be unsustainable.[/quote]

Why are you obsessed with limits? You know most of our ileagal immigrants are Visa overstayers. You know how much off-shore detention costs ... and resettling people ridiculously for millions upon millions in places like Cambodia whilst refusing NZ's offer to house people? So we could look tough?

If that's good enough for you, fine. Stay stuck on ignoring the inhumanity happening in your name and stay stuck on nebulous numbers.

Yes. There is. Humane, facilitated refugee camps in regional locations which are sponsored by the world's wealthier nations.

What is a facilitated refugee camp? Which Nations are going to chip in to house people seeking refuge in Australia? None that I can think off.

One with all provisions to house people in dignity and safety and with resources available to them to seek settlement somewhere safe.

How many of them will we need for how many people?

And it's a global problem, Aussie. One that requires a global solution. The problem is, too many people like you let them get away with not returning a little of what they have plundered. How you can support the idea of it being too hard over it being unacceptable is precisely the mechanism they use to get away with it.

The orange makes no sense. Yes, it is a global problem requiring a global solution, no doubt. But, allowing potential millions into any one Country is unsustainable. We have to keep reality in sight here.

I've not seen one word of condemnation from most of you over the outrageous human rights violations we are currently committing on Nauru or Manus. When confronted with the fact a 14 year old girl's latest suicide attempt was to douse herself in petrol, and was only given the required treatment under threat of court action, you all respond with "You want to let them all in?"''

Then you are ignoring what many have posted.

I don't think like that. And it will be through people who don't think like that that solutions will become possible. We have the means ... many times over.

No we don't have the capacity to deal with an influx of hundreds of thousands. If there were jobs waiting for them, maybe....but there are not. Much as I am a humanitarian, I am not going to see Australia go legs up being a sacrificial Good Samaritan for the World.

We cut people smugglers off at the root by providing safe transport for these people ourselves.

With no limit? The economic cost alone would be unsustainable.

Why are you obsessed with limits? You know most of our ileagal immigrants are Visa overstayers. You know how much off-shore detention costs ... and resettling people ridiculously for millions upon millions in places like Cambodia whilst refusing NZ's offer to house people? So we could look tough?

Limits? Because we have to maintain sustainability within Australia.

If that's good enough for you, fine. Stay stuck on ignoring the inhumanity happening in your name and stay stuck on nebulous numbers.

I'll keep on focusing on the people.

So do I, including Australian people. There has to be a balance which is not evident in your comments.[/quote]

Perhaps you can comment upon tangible solutions already expressed, and ignored, typically.

There is no dog's breakfast. I did what I had to do given how you formatted your comments.

Dunno why you want me to repeat myself in another Thread, so I won't.

My point is basic and realistic......we cannot have and economically sustain uncapped migration, refugee or otherwise to Australia. Much as we all might like it to happen...if we cannot afford it, my balance call is, it ought not happen.

The problem is, too many people like you let them get away with not returning a little of what they have plundered. How you can support the idea of it being too hard over it being unacceptable is precisely the mechanism they use to get away with it.

Perhaps you can comment upon tangible solutions already expressed, and ignored, typically.

There is no dog's breakfast. I did what I had to do given how you formatted your comments.

Dunno why you want me to repeat myself in another Thread, so I won't.

My point is basic and realistic......we cannot have and economically sustain uncapped migration, refugee or otherwise to Australia. Much as we all might like it to happen...if we cannot afford it, my balance call is, it ought not happen.

You weren't asked to comment in another thread, you were invited to read the OP, which proposes solutions. I take it you declined? Again?

And absolutely nobody has said, ever, that migration should be uncapped.

The problem is, too many people like you let them get away with not returning a little of what they have plundered. How you can support the idea of it being too hard over it being unacceptable is precisely the mechanism they use to get away with it.

I don't follow what you are saying.

I don't understand how to make it clearer.

People are dying. Children are attempting suicide in horrific ways. And all people like you want to talk about is the reasons why we can't stop it. You give those arseholes permission to do what they do.

Squire wrote:The policies of both major parties have been inhuman, criminal, and have damaged Australia's reputation.

Kidnapping people on the high seas and detaining them in third countries is a crime.

So, if 200,000 people arrived on boats to Australia shores, your policy would be to let all of them in, no questions asked?

Problem is.....that takes us to the very pointy end of the dilemma. No, I would not like to see 200,000 moving to Aus in leaky boats, but I have no say in that. As far as I am concerned, our Navy has been acting as pirates on the High Seas, intercepting vessels who have a right of passage, like we claim to have through the South China Sea. If said vessels get to Aus waters, and the occupants claim asylum, our obligations under that UN Convention kick in.

There is no solution, other than....remove the reason these people are leaving Home.

That there, is a very sensible answer.

and one many from the left have called for many times over. Abbott didn't want refugees, why did he refuse to pull out as a signatory of the refugee convention? His problem was he wanted his cake and he wanted to eat it too. At the time rudd won office the first time, we were the only signatory in the region to the refugee convention (perhaps NZ was too). It's like sending out invitations then shutting the door once they get here.

FD.I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

People are dying. Children are attempting suicide in horrific ways. And all people like you want to talk about is the reasons why we can't stop it. You give those arseholes permission to do what they do.

That does not equal this, which makes no sense:

The problem is, too many people like you let them get away with not returning a little of what they have plundered. How you can support the idea of it being too hard over it being unacceptable is precisely the mechanism they use to get away with it.

You are conflating the current problem on Manus and Nauru with an overall general Policy.

Sure, I do not want those people who are there to remain on Naura or Manus. But......that is not the same argument about an Australian Policy on capping migration, regular or irregular.

It seems that you are positing that because some individuals are really suffering on Nauru and Manus now, (and I have always supported bringing that to an end contrary to your assertions) Australia must ipso facto open the borders for hundreds of thousand on an ongoing never ending basis.

mothra wrote:And absolutely nobody has said, ever, that migration should be uncapped.

So.....do you accept the current cap, and what to do with anyone on boats who have a go? It is a no win point. Unless we have a way to stop those boats, the cap is stuffed, the borders are open, and Manus /Nauru are back in business.

mothra wrote:And absolutely nobody has said, ever, that migration should be uncapped.

So.....do you accept the current cap, and what to do with anyone on boats who have a go? It is a no win point. Unless we have a way to stop those boats, the cap is stuffed, the borders are open, and Manus /Nauru are back in business.

Take away the motivation to leave Home is the only way to solve this.

No i do not accept the current cap, that at a 20 year low overall has been dropped to 16,500 ... particularly as many of the people requiring resettlement are victims of our foreign policies.

And i think increasing our humanitarian intake and building regional camps that are places of safety and nurture and that present real opportunity for people's futures is significantly more feasible than somehow removing the impetus for migration in the first place.